just another ex-jazz-musician/proto-rapper/Jersey-Irish-poet-actor/print-junkie/film-raptor/beat-hipster-"white Negro"-rhapsodizer/ex-hippie-punk-'60s-radical-organizer's take on all things cultural, political, spiritual & aggrandizing

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

OCCUPYING WALL STREET (BRIEFLY FOR NOW)

The media and those who succumb to its distortions continues to cast most of our reality in terms the right dictates, directly or indirectly.

The network and cable news I mostly watch—and even the NPR news I listen to on the radio—and the right claims is "liberal" or biased from the left (though for many years now there's only been the right and the center at work in official party politics) sometimes does show a bias toward a more centrist or even "liberal" perspective of a news story.

But ultimately they incorporate the right's perspective and give it more weight than it warrants (if 99 percent of scientists say global warming is real and humans causes are at least part of the reason and one percent denies that, how can they be seen as equal sides of the argument?) or don't include any alternative to the right except for something more or less right, but never left.

Anyway, this is true of the media's response to Occupy Wall Street. At first the response was that the occupiers had no message, were unclear about what they were protesting and/or demanding. Which, of course, was not true. A variety of ways of expressing their anger at what Wall Street represents and mostly is does not mean there was no message, just a varied way of declaring it.

But of course the news media has become so much about commenters and commenting and so little about actual reporting that their formats demand segments focused on one interpretation of an event and the supposed "two sides" to the argument about it.

When that early complaint from the media was simply proven false by the relentless reality of the demonstrations themselves, the media switched to a new false but equally rightwing influenced perception of the Occupy Wall Street movement, that it is not diverse enough, in terms of class and "race."

I know this is false just from my brief participation in the demonstrations and from friends who have taken part and continue to. Look at almost any video on the web of a day at Occupy Wall Street and you'll see not only more diversity than in probably any neighborhood in "America" but than in any demonstration you've ever seen before.

Are there more "white" people generally demonstrating and occupying the Liberty Plaza, maybe, though if you actually go by the ethnic and so-called "racial" breakdown of our country's population from my observations there is a higher percentage of diversity in the park than in the country (except perhaps for Hispanic participation, but then that can't be discerned simply from looking at the people participating).

At any rate, here's some footage from the day I took part, see if you can spot anyone who isn't totally "white" (whatever that means anyway) or looks like there might be any variety in their "class"—though 99% incorporates a lot of variation in financial status and background.

By the way, if you look to your right of the screen at 5:13 minutes in you might see an old white haired gent looking, I must admit, pretty "white" and "un-classy" (yeah, yours truly).

[You can pause it at 5:13 or 5:14 to catch me, and on YouTube it's bigger if that helps.]
[PS: I meant to thank Annabel Lee for sending me the alert and the link to this video.]

OK, I agree with your comment Robert, but since you responded so strongly before I could (with the delete key) I feel I have to leave the first comment in.

But let me point out that there is enormous support for the Occupy Wall Street movement (much much more than for the first commenter's Tea Party), and any small diminishment in that support can be attributed to the easily-manipulated-by-the-right media's perpetuating of myths and provocations not initiated by the occupiers of Wall Street but by provocateurs who may be actually working for police or intelligence agencies or are rightwing ringers, etc. none of which is farfetched since that is exactly what happened in the 1960s and more recently and has been disclosed in various documentaries and alternative news reports on those who took part in confrontationally provocative activism in recent anti-corporate anti-G8 and G20 meetings etc.

But I can certainly see what upset you Robert. The rightwing blog stalker's nasty comment about the occupiers "aroma...increasing" is an insult personally, since the video has me in it as part of the occupation, and my youngest was with me as well as his mother (I didn't spot them in the video but they're there) and many friends etc. and I'll match their hygene against any Tea Partyers anytime, let alone their respect for others and for all creatures as well as our planet.

The "dirt smelly hippie" thing is so 1960s I can't believe the right has revived it. But I was there. There was no "aroma" of any kind. In fact, it smelled cleaner in Liberty Plaza (the pre-corporate name of "Zucotti Park") than in most places I go in Manhattan.

Once again Robert you responded before I could delete, because Anonymous is obviously lying about Occupy Wall Street movement. He and the first commenter obviously get their news from rightwing propagandists, and the use of "redistribute" is a pretty good indicator of that.

PS: Robert, engaging these folks is pointless. They don't change their views unless their corporate owned rightwing media and political masters (whether they understand what they are or not) tell them to. They want you to argue back so they can get more inane and duplicitous misinformation out there in the universe, even if it's just on my, and others', blogs. It doesn't take anywhere near the same amount of energy we expend refuting them and citing factual evidence etc. because they just parrot the latest rightwing line, which is usually a lie wrapped in either invective or what they think is humor but is more like a smirking sense of their superiority because they are able to arouse a response. So, I won't waste any more time on responses. I suggest you save your precious energy and time as well Robert on them and devote it to sharing your experience and knowledge and compassion and creativity which is so much more valuable than anything they have to offer.

Thanks Michael, believe me I agree. Today, I've already made an appointment to visit a local middle school where I'm currently based next week and do my best to empower the students there. And I just emailed you and others on my list a tribute to my friend Heavy D, may he rest in peace. The Zen sages say: "When hungry eat, when tired sleep, when angry shout." Sometimes these irresponsible, spineless hacksters need to be shoved back and put in their place.

There have been numerous actual, injurious uses of grenades by police against demonstraters, but very few if any by demonstraters against authorities. However, according to you and yours, the second amendment does give demonstrater-citizens the right to bear arms -- so contend you and your fanatic colleagues who support "open carry" -- oh, but wait, didn't you just say "no right is absolute"? Hypocrit.

Sorry Robert, but I choose to turn off the rightwing propaganda machine when it's operating on my blog relentlessly. The rightwing attacks on the Occupy Wall Street movement (which includes police actions) illustrates how threatened the right is by any kind of demonstration of popular resistance to their agenda. They've always made it clear that anything to the left of Limbaugh they consider so dangerous it must be annihilated by whatever means (including the militarization of the police). As I've noted before, my experience in the protests of the 1960s and '70s was that almost every act of violence and physical provocation came from agents of the various police and intelligence groups or from rightwing provocateurs out to discredit those who disagreed with them or threatened their old on power. Time will tell who was behind some of the things being blamed on individuals being connected in the rightwing media with occupy Wall Street protestors, but my guess is most if not all incidents that seem unlikely for liberals or progressives or even radicals to engage in probably are.